Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr vs Smt. Vatschala Uttam More on 17 July, 1991
(ii) That even if a person is not actually in the vehicle and is standing outside
and suffers an injury, even in that case Supreme Court of India has allowed
compensation in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 ACJ 777
(SC). Therefore, merely because some of the victims were taken out of the bus
and thereafter shot dead, would not make any difference;
Section 163 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt.Rita Devi & Ors vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 27 April, 2000
The Court relying on the decision of Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India
Assurance Company Ltd and Another reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113 held that
it was not a case of murder simpliciter but a case of accidental murder and
therefore in terms of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the claim
2
application of the claimants was maintainable.
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shiv Dutt Sharma on 31 December, 2002
Further, it has been held in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Dutt Sharma; 2002 SCC OnLine J&K
46 : 53. On the basis of the judicial pronouncements and the material which
has come on the record, it is concluded: